Comments

I love my Sony DSC-RX10, but it has developed a problem and I was wondering if anybody else is having this issue? The camera is kept in perfect condition, but now the zoom lever sticks while zooming out and when you let go of it, it continues to zoom out unless I tap it a little and it snaps back to center where it should be. The zoom lever is variable speed, meaning that if you move it a little, it zooms slower. If I do it slowly, at some point I can make it stick. I've sent it in for repair TWICE under warranty. The first time it came back worse and the second time it is a little better, but still can stick. I don't know what to do about it and am tired of sending it back to the same shop. Has anybody seen this problem?

Hi David. I have exactly the same problem. The camera is also kept in perfect condition in its case. I have had it for a year and a few months go developed what u have described. I am just going to leave it.

As a Possibilian, perhaps we can look forward to an RX10 MkII with 4Kvideo and the option of normal mechanical manual focus and zoom that work independently of electronics? As the RX100 has so far had three incarnations, is this RX10 a one-off like the R1 was or should I wait until I can use it in the same way as one could the R1 (at least for zooming)?

I think you have missed one of the main points of functionality with the RX10 and it's electronic zoom. this was one of the main factors why I bought this camera. keep in mind that this camera is going to be used by a lot of people primarily as a video camera and you want that smoothness of an electronic zoom rather than the jerkiness of a manual one. I was also unsure about the electronic manual focusing before purchasing but now that I have held the camera and tested this out, it is very precise. I think another advantage is that after setting your focus you dont have to worry about accidentally bumping out of focus while operating the camera which often happened to me on my previous camera... the combination of mechanical manual focus and mechanical zoom was a major headache when trying to shoot video.

I got the good results I did not using Sony software: not even with their free Capture One Pro for Sony, but with Raw Therapee in its latest incarnation.

Sony really do need to create a decent software programme to match their decent machines' sensor.

I cannot use my year-old Lightroom and Elements with their RX10, or with a D810 etc. Doubtless other new machines also suffer. Not to mention frustrated owners.

Can you imagine buying a Mac or Windows computer without the software necessary to be able to get the best out of it. It is high time these greedy guys BOTHERED to prove to customers that they are in fact capable of what a RAW file needs, or a Jpeg (especially as so many recent jpegs from new machines are so bad.

Today I tried one out in a store, using RAW and ISO settings from 100-1000 .Quel Gizmo! IF you accept the slow zooming process (and you can train yourself between shots to move it to whichever focal length you believe comes next-they are marked on the barrel), it focusses very well, it is stonkingly silent, the IS works at 200mm, and it has excellent resolution.

However the best is the lack of noise. Possibly (Maybe) Sony will in the next year or two announce the Conquest of Noise, a far greater step than that of Everest.

At 1000 ISO.fine detail is retained. There is noise, but as it is so fine-grained, the fine detail wins. I was totally gobsmacked when I went through the RAW files on my monitor. I could not concentrate on food or my fav programme on TV: it is an outrageous piece of engineering. Extend this quality to the A7R II, and it will be amazing.

I have caught a glimpse of the real Sony road map, and it is very exciting, Yea!!

"the near-legendary R1", which I still sometimes use, has an APS-C sized sensor-almost, but it has other great advantages over this RX10 thingy. The RX10 thingy, and the new Panasonic, cannot zoom or focus except very slowly using a battery-draining electronic motor (that is not part of the battery life figurs I reckon). With the R1 it zooms as fast as you can move the zoom ring. Focus is also reliant on a motor (by wire), but the auto-focus is as fast as a DSLR, and accurate.

These motor-driven RX10 zooms are of NO practical use, as you are always left waiting for the zoom to catch up to the point you have zoomed to-both inaccurate and slow.

Reading the Review, comparing images taken with the Pany and Sony RX10, and having had experience with both Panasonic and Sony cameras, the only excuses to give an 82% rating for the DMC-FZ1000 and 80% for the RX10 would be maybe due to the longer lens reach of the Panasonic and the higher Sony price. Even though I'd keep the Sony for its superior build, better IQ ( mainly in RAW shooting ) and ergonomics.

.... and the Sony RX10 have better build with metal chassis, superb Zeiss glass with constant f2.8 aperture throughout its zoom range, weather sealed against moisture and dust, have ND filter, headphone jack and better out of camera jpegs if you don't do post processing.

Hi all my first post here on the forums and just to let you all know I have a very basic knowledge of Photography at this point and was just interested to see if anyone has come across a problem mentioned here:

In the end I did purchase the camera and had no problem with the issue mentioned above but I have decided to take it back due to a problem with what I would consider to be quite bad lens wobble. From some forums this is normal activity but for a 1300 dollar camera I don't believe this is good enough.

Carl Ziess and 'Ziess' lenses are two different beasts. One -- the Carl Ziess is made by anyone with lens making ability who has licensed the name. The other is from the original west German factory.

I guess it must seem pretty neat buying a plastic camera with a Carl Ziess or Leica lens on it but like the compact 35mm camera I bought a lifetime ago just for the German lens name on it's plastic lens, the performance just doesn't live up to the formidable reputation these legendary lens manufacturers rightly earned from their best lenses. Sadly those on compact cameras seldom (if ever) live up to the expectation the name suggests.

I'd be more interested to discover who made the lens than to blindly trust the name on it. Acrylic lens elements - the stuff beer glasses are made from, are getting better with lens makers experience, even mixing glass elements with plastic ones but don't be fooled for a single second... If it is a lightweight lens, it's made with plastic elements.

Long time ago I got a Sony Walkman it stopped working after 3 days, than I got DVD player it could not play all DVD's, I got a P&S 3 megapixel camera it started overheating and after 4 months stopped working...SONY have worst engineering crew for consumer products.For professional TV production they are amazing, but I have tendency not to buy anything with that brand name.

Where the reviewer says:"Sony cameras have the unfortunate reputation of over-processing their JPEGs, to the point where fine details look 'fake'. During our time with the RX10, this issue wasn't terrible, but there's still some room for improvement.One area which really suffers is grass and foliage. The example below illustrates the problem, and how you can fix it."He makes it sound like a problem fixed into the JPEG engine, but surely the Sharpness, NR and whatever can simply be turned down? Why doesn't he say this?Mike

The lens movement is not a problem. It is part of the design of the camera. People are comparing it to interchangable lens camera technology instead of fixed lens technology. I am a happy happy RX10 owner, there has been lens movement in my camera since day 1, and here is a link to a dropbox folder with my amazing RX10 results. There is a great low light video in there as well. The audio was from built in mics only. Be sure to view it at the highest quality HD. https://www.dropbox.com/sh/cdxb4fi3to3a12y/AACo_8uwoJROjfwQtzUeUZPGa Enjoy and be sure to send me feed back.

I recently got the RX10. In continuous mode (standard) I get the ~ 3.4 fps, but ONLY when the AF is set to single (AF-S). When AF-C is selected I only get ~1fps. There is nothing beeing mentioned in the related DPreview testing. Does somebody else get this same results?

hmmm, I think we got some misfocus here.comparing RAW image quality against Sony NEX-6 @ ISO 100 & 125, I see softer images on RX10's sample vs NEX-6.However when you increase to ISO 200 (RX10 refocus), you can clearly see that the RX10 cropped picture sharpness is wayyy much better, comparable to those of NEX-6 (apart from the noise performance).

My first comment posting on dpreview as using the RX-10 was a big disappointment. Given the rave reviews I have never been so surprised hence posting here. Compared to the RX-100 which I have had for some time the jpg images out of the camera are really soft. I never bother with RAW from the RX-100 as the jpgs are so good. I worked on a few RAW from the RX-10 but struggled to improve them much. I wonder if there is a fault with the unit I have (or had since I've taken it back to the store for a refund). I admit I took a lot of shots at f2.8 but why buy such a lens and shy away from big apertures because you can't rely on the quality?

I love the versatility of the camera and if it delivered on IQ then I'd be fine with the price too. But £879 for so-so results it's not for me.

Here are some jpeg images out of the RX10. Maybe you have it set wrong

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/cdxb4fi3to3a12y/AAChQfkt9FkdcQnZvsacR_s0a

Im not having any problem with softness. And check out the amazing low light video with only built in mics. Its in this dropbox folder as well. Be sure to pic high rez. for some reason youtube's diffault is much lower than it was recorded in.

My favorite camera of all time...The RX10 that is...I am tired of changing lenses and just want solid pictures and video for my family. The RX10 allows me to do that without worrying about changing lenses. I have sold all my DSLR gear and have no regrets.

I would prefer that in graph like the equivalent focal length comparison the name of the camera be written at the end of each line on the right in opposition of the actual situation in which there is a table with color lines and camera name: it should be much more understandable at a glance! thanks!

Because the RX10 comes with an expensive lens. It is much better than the one the A6000 comes with; both in the amount of zoom and also it is a constant f2.8 zoom. You can get an 18-200 zoom for $800 but that is f3.5-6 so its not nearly as good. Really good lenses are very expensive. The RX10 is also weather sealed.

I agree with you about the lens, but the lens not everthing if you look at the sensor size of the RX10 1″ (13.2 x 8.8 mm) while the sensor size in A6000 is APS-C (23.5 x 15.6 mm) not mentioning the MEGAPIXLES

All things being equal, upgrading to a higher quality lens is far more expensive than upgrading to a larger sensor. You asked why it was so expensive, and the answer is the "the lens". The RX10 is also weather sealed while the A6000 is not.

Correct way of comparing (keeping 35mm as the base) the lenses: f7.6 is applicable for comparing its depth of field only, whereas f2.8 is applicable for comparing the exposure/illumination of the sensor

The lens correction of images squishes detail along the borders, especially at the long end.Even the subtlest noise reduction and then clever sharpening unfortunately peppers uniformly everything of the same tonal value. Smaller you wont notice, but then you could have a 12 MP sensor and get rid of the noise and restore some sense of reality to the graphic. The RAW file here of the red scooter (look at the nearest handle, and wince)

The 200mm lens with a 20MP sensor is a lot of magnification, but the 20MP magnifies all the faults of the lens and the corrections and the noise off the sensor.

The autofocus is broken on my RX-10 (new Aug, 2014), so I always use manual focus. I notice images are blurred on the left of long shots, even when I focus to the left before shooting. Also, when I've taken things like indoor shots on 5MP setting & I forget to reset to 20MP, the 5MP setting on an outdoor long-distance shot is sometimes superior to an identical 20MP shot, so long as I don't zoom in on the picture after I've taken it, or enlarge a fraction of the photo to the full size of the original.

I downloaded RAWs from DPreview and Sonycameralabs.com (good review) and Imaging resource and fed them to my 2713H Dell, using the Sony Raw converter as my Photoshop and Lightroom cannot open the files . The Sony software again allows you to control the colour very well and the WAY sharpening is done (which I was used to on My R1), and has now good noise reduction but I got rid of all those options and sent TIFFs into Photoshop instead, and did it all there. Result? It's a digicam.Even at the lowest settings the noise destroys the integrity of the image. Clothes, Flesh, brickwork, furniture and leaves all have the same texture, despite that lens.Only colour and your brain says different.Shame, I was really hoping it was OK. Give it another 10 years, it'll be OK!!

dpreview's test camera seems to have a quite noticeable centering defect: Imatest says that resolution in the left corners is around 33% better than in the right ones. (1200 vs 900 lw/ph, thereabouts.)

definitely! i´ve owned more than one RX10, and all showed significant/terrible difference between both corners, sometimes right better than left, sometimes vice versa. all were sent back. i know that with F2.8, corners can be/normally ARE a bit softer, but that´s not what i mean here!

I WAS thinking I would buy this camera only when the price dropped significantly. Otherwise I'd buy a weatherproofed Pentax K50 SYSTEM for about the same money. (Yes, I know i wouldn't be getting F2.8, but the much larger sensor easily compensates for that.) However, the reported RX10 problems with sensor-lens misalignment are pushing me toward the Pentax even IF the sony price comes down by several hundred.

I ordered this camera from Amazon twice and have returned it twice, obviously ambivalent! My main disappointment, among other things, is that the lens although very good does not support the high-resolution sensor. At that price I expect corner to corner sharpness at all focal lengths as I have with my Nikon P7700.

Since I bought the RX10, I've only taken the A65 out with the Tamron lens attached. I use it for wildlife photography and it works pretty well. I take the RX100 when I want something that fits in a pocket yet still takes great photos. I took it to Venice and was very happy with the results. Just wish I had had the RX10 as well.

I'll see how things develop over spring and summer, as I get to shoot much more, but it is looking like I might be selling some lenses at the very least.

DPreview - please don't complain about the default settings so much in your reviews - particularly those for the JPEG settings. The manufacturers provide adjustment capability so you can easily do this.

Just note the fact that the default settings are not optimum for you and make the changes to improve matters. That only takes a few minutes. Then move on and test the camera.

Only complain if you cannot achieve good results after making adjustments.

This is a site where serious photographers look for serious reviews. All of us can make the necessary simple adjustments to improve image quality as we see it.

And isn't that just the point...that so many seem to be missing!This camera (and I am a very happy owner of one) is all about convenience and quality. It is not a silver bullet!The inevitable compromises one has to accept, if convenience is high on your list of priorities, fall well within acceptable tolerances when you look at the results the camera produces.So rather than knocking the camera for its individual, perceived shortcomings, it should be viewed as a whole. And if the criteria the camera so ably fulfills aren't high on your list of priorities the answer is quite simple...don't buy it!

I'm sure we will have to wait when Canon PowerShot G1X Mark II is actually released in the US, but I am extremely curious to know if the "macro" performance on RX10 compares to that on G1x Mark II. As a "casual" flower photo-taker, that feature, which was not great on original G1X which I owned until recently, is very important to me.

a lil pricey..but seems like a beast of tech..and please people.DONT compare a "dumb" smartphone to a camera. 2 totally different things.smartphones may be taking over the world,but they will NEVER take over a semi serious/serious photographer.

I have an A57 as well. Just don't go up against it shooting video with an A57.And I would guess if your kit lens is anything but a 16-50 f2.8, you'll lose there too.Don't get me wrong, I think the A57 is great...for shooting stills, with the right lens.That being said I would trade my A57 for an rx10 any day, especially for travel.

The RX10 (which I have owned for several months) is a very, very good video camera. The still images are good but the video is great and the ability to have a lens that's par focal (that doesn't change focus as you zoom) and constant aperture (doesn't change aperture as you zoom) means that you can use this camera for serious video production.

It's different than all those cameras listed below because it doesn't do line skipping in video it reads out the whole frame. This makes its final video output much sharper and more detailed than any of those. It's worth the cash IF you do video with it. Zebras, focus peaking, audio control. It's just a nearly perfect budget video machine. That's why people buy it.

RX10: $1300A77 with 18-135: $1100K5IIs with 18-135: $115070D with 18-135: $1300D7100 with 18-140: $13007D with 18-135: $1400K3 with 18-135: $1400

It's not that it's priced like an APS-C camera, it's that it's priced like a TOP END APS-C camera. I mean those lenses are all a LITTLE less of a zoom and their apertures favor wide to tele (which IMHO is an advantage) but this cam's got a lot of high end competition. Not like the RX10 fits in your pocket.

Sorry. But your argument does not make any sense. Put the equivalent optics on all those APSC cameras and not only will you be carrying at least 2 lenses but the price of those lenses would bring your total cost to triple that of the RX10. And your video capture would still not come close .

Darngood -- almost all of them reach 200mm equivalent. And it IS directly comparable because even if a lens is technically an f/2.8 on a 1" sensor doesnt mean it behaves like an f/2.8 on fullframe in terms of image results. Technical is the same as total perceivable equivalency. Its 2.7x crop factor mean images will appear as if shot by an f/7.6, even if the technical light ratio is the same.

Meanwhile, the APSC lense perceived equivalencies are f/6.5, f/8.5, or f/9.5, when compared against the f/7.6 of the Sony, even if technically f/4-6.3. All pretty much in the same range & the APSC sensor is much, much larger and can have better ISOs in the same sensor generation AND you can change lenses, allowing actual f/2.8 equivalent lenses (such as a technical f/1.8, or even better, f/1.4), smoking this Sony.

So yes, its 100% comparable with the price. Sony should be under $900, otherwise its way overpriced by 40%. Not a bargain, considering even lower range DSLRs will do a better.

I know that on that sensor f2.8 doesn't provide the same DOF as on a larger sensor, but it still gathers way mor eight than your f6.5 equivillent. This camera is basically a super zoom RX100 and people love the image quality of those compacts.

Again, how large and heavy is that DSLR with all the lens needed to have the same focal length as the Sony's single lens? How expensive is that DLSR + the needed lens(s)? Is that DSLR weather sealed? Does it have a built in ND filter? The point of bridge cameras are the convenience. If you don't care about all in one convenience then bridge cameras aren't for you.

You keep on mentioning the ability to change lenses as a benefit, but people who want a bridge camera don't care about that so all you are doing is dismissing a camera because it doesn't provide what you value. If someone doesn't want to buy additional lenses, why would they care that you can o so on a DLSR?

Convenience of not changing lenses can be solved by: Not changing lenses on the DSLR's I listed! The RX10 is a little smaller, but not much. The RX10 features IS, so do ALL of the other pairings I listed. ND filters are a problem on compacts that don't fit filters, they're pretty easy to have around when you have a DSLR.

The equivalence is correct, for the 1000th time. The RX10 is not magically able to gather more light at f2.8 than it's sensor's physical dimensions. Aperture is related to light INTENSITY, it is very much NOT related to LIGHT VOLUME. In the film era when everybody had the same size film, you knew the sensor so you knew the light gathering. Now that we have such variation in sensor size, you can't use aperture alone to have any clue on light gathering. A budget cell phone's f2.0 lens takes in only a small fraction of the light a FF sensor does at f8.0 because the FF camera's sensor is so much larger!

So which weather sealed DSLR/Lens combo do you recommend to match this? Having to add/remove an ND filter is not only not convenient but slows down your shooting, maybe if you factor in a variable one but those add a lot to your comparable price.

Weather sealed is not a normal requirement but even if that's what you want, Pentax has you set up with their 18-135 WR lens which you can mount on any of their DSLR's. Their top model is currently bundled with that lens and costs about 10% more than the RX10. You can use any other pentax DSLR body and it'll be cheaper than the RX10 like the K5IIs or the FAR cheaper K50.

The K50 with 18-135 is a third less money than the RX10 and although longer, not much different in terms of weight.

The RX10 is a nice all-in-one I suppose if it meets exactly your criteria. DSLR's are designed to meet most of your criteria out of the box and give you options for more individual requirements. The only thing really unique about the capabilities of the RX10 is the video and since it's release, Panasonic just crushed it on that.

For example, for better video. Even the GH3 has somewhat worse video (at least low light-wise; resolution-wise, the two are pretty much equal), let alone the other cameras, which are significantly worse in every respect (resolution, low light, moire, available video framerates etc).

The equivalent 2.8 lens on APC-S camera will actually be usable at > ISO800 whereas RX10 is not with its small sensor. The only reason why RX10 lens is small is because it is paired with sensor that limits this camera to daylight shooting.

I also like the fact that I can change the lenses on APC-S dslr to accommodate situation and produce results that incorporate lens variations and creativity that comes with such flexibility. RX10 will always produce the same results, that are in fact completely lifeless and... shockingly bad at that price point

Sensor size, fast glass and optics, price and superior video and excellent jpeg engine is the reason. You will pay triple the price in micro 4/3 or APSC for the same focal range and speed. And your sensor is too small on the best bridge camera. Now talk superior video and price! The RX 10 is a no brainer if you understand the principles of photography and also if you just want to shoot automatic until you do.

Please remind me what sensor is in a GH3 again; because I always thought it was a 4/3rds, not an APSC .... and as such (and without a truely matched CONSTANT Zeis f2.8 at 200mm), pours a bit of scorn on your counter argument!

If you don't video, don't mind losing 1.5 stops at the tele end, don't need the equivalent of 200mm but like the idea of 24mm, don't mind a restricted ISO range of up to 3,200 and can put up with the noise if you do use it, you consider 10meg resolution is adequate for your needs, you believe that an APS-C sensor has certain advantages, you do want a top quality Zeiss lens and want to save a lot of money into the bargain, get yourself a Sony R1.

I had posted this on page 1, and I repeat it here. Maybe owners can check this...There may be a VERY ALARMING issue with the RX10! Some users (a.o. on the german Amazon site) have been complaining about the lens not being properly aligned to the housing (sensor!), which causes out of focus pictures towards the edges. One consumer checked three different copies of the RX10 and all three were not properly alligned, and he sent them all three back and gave up on this camera. If the construction of this relatively large lens to the camera housing does have such problems in quality control, all the benefits of having good glass and a good sensor are wasted of course.I would urge all owners to check this by carefully aligning the lens with a nearby test card and check whether such a problem exist with their RX10 and report back here... I am very interested in this camera myself (particularly now that prices have dropped), but I want to make sure that this problem does not persist.

I bought one in january (Brussel, Belgium). The upper right border was slightly soft and the bottom left corner was totally blurred at focal length from 26 to 45 at aperture 2.8, 4, and even 5.6 (but slightly less). I sent my RX10 for repair, they changed a "lens" but the problem remains. I will write a letter to Sony and the shop where I bought this camera and will ask for a refund, because I find unacceptable they didn't made a test after the repair and have given back a defective camera. Sorry for my not so good english.

My RX-10 was new in Aug, 2014, but the auto-focus is broken, so I have to use manual. I notice distance shots (with little or no zoom, i.e. 24-30mm) are blurred to the left, so I try and correct this by focusing on the left of the pic I wish to take. However, they're still blurred to the left. Also, some longshots taken at 5MP are sharper than those at 20MP, as long as I don't zoom in on the photo after I take it, or enlarge a quarter of the photo to the size of the complete picture.

Bought one 4 months ago. Happy with it. Slow zoom is relative: it is still faster than change lenses. Zooming also takes much less time than the time i need to think about composition or aperture usage. Macro usage is great.

How about being a bit less presumptuous and / or pretentious? He may very well have meant a section that would be more appropriately titled 'Informative Comments' (very few complaints are actually informative as a rule)...

If this vastly overpriced, niche camera with its list of cons gets a gold award then DPR needs to go back and upgrade a whole lot of cameras to make any sense of their grading system. If you really think about what you can buy for $1,300, then the RX10 seems just plain silly. Sony execs must be chuckling, and unfortunately planning future overpriced gear, at the gullible camera reviewers and buyers who are gushing over this flawed seriously overpriced camera. For a more reasoned reviewed of the RX10 check the Camera Labs review at http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Sony_Cyber-shot_RX10/. It did not receive a Highly Recommended.

read the review,w ent to a local seller.... bought it!!!!! having the rx100II and the eos 70D and 5dmark two with all the best lenses, the rx 10 is a no brainer for travelling..... 875gramms with that lens and that sensor.... great.... only the zoom is very slow..... and wifi is a toy, compared to the ability that for example canon offers, but:weight and IQ in this package with tis this price are outstanding!!!!!! rx100 in the pocket in the evening, and rx10 on the neck daytime, bo more to carry with me while travelling.....

I was going to get the Sony RX-10 until Canon came out with the GX 1 Mk II. It has a sensor twice as big as the RX-10 in a relatively compact package. While the GX 1 zoom range is less than the Sony (120mm vs. 200), the lower price, bigger sensor, and compact form factor decided me in favor of the Canon Mk II--which, however, is not scheduled for release until May 9th. That said, the RX-10 is a very attractive package even at the price, and may be better for some user's needs. The tests show that the Sony and Canon have comparable image quality, but the Canon gets the nod within its lens magnification range. At its full zoom extension, the Sony would probably pull ahead. Purely as a zoom camera, the Sony is probably better, but up to 120mm, the Canon should be superior.

Comparing jpg images on DPR's review tool, I noticed that the Canon GX 1 has much more natural skin tones compared to the Sony RX-10

Yes. If you don't need a super zoom lens you can buy a regular camera the performs better. But someone who is shopping for a super zoom, wants the longer zoom lens, and will not be happy with a regular camera.